03 July 2011 3:16 PM

Just text 'Claim' ... then give these vultures both barrels!

This is Peter's Mail on Sunday column

Parliament does plenty of stupid things without meaning to. Mainly this is because MPs are too ill-informed or lazy, or too dogmatic, or too much under the thumb of Downing Street, to see the damage they are doing. The voices of warning are dismissed as ‘extremists’ or told abruptly ‘This is the 21st Century, you know’, as if that made any difference.

That’s why a rich, peaceful, beautiful country is fast turning into an unstable, disorderly, impoverished slum. But there’s one case where nobody can pretend they didn’t know what was coming.

This is the deliberate creation of a whole new caste of greedy, cynical ambulance-chasing lawyers. Whenever you hear of a stupid case of 'Health and Safety' dictatorship, it’s these people, not ‘Human Rights’ or Political Correctness, who are to blame. That’s why councils ban cheese-rolling festivals and veterans’ parades. That’s why it says ‘Contents may be hot’ on the lids of coffee cups, why there are notices next to rivers saying ‘Danger, deep water’.

For once, you cannot even pin the responsibility on the ghastly Blair creature or his accomplice, Gordon Brown. In fact, Labour’s Jack Straw has earned himself some credit for exposing some of the seamier aspects of this already seamy apology for an industry.

The culprits were the last Tory Government, which in 1990 passed Section 58 of the Courts And Legal Services Act and then went on to push through the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations, approved as a Statutory Instrument in 1995.

Until then, no-win, no-fee cases were not allowed here. And anyone who wondered why not needed only to go to the USA and look. I remember laughing about TV commercials for injury lawyers when I first went there in 1977. Mad, risk-free lawsuits led to madder awards, and to ridiculously expensive insurance premiums.

I don’t in any way condone or excuse this, but it is the case in Britain now that young men find it incredibly hard to get affordable car insurance, and many drive uninsured.

There’s also the distasteful business of the lawyers themselves, circling high above the misfortunes of others, then descending to pick at the remains like carrion crows. Some of you may remember Paul Newman playing such a lawyer in the 1982 film The Verdict – a miserable deadbeat hanging round undertakers’ chapels handing out his card to the bereaved.

There’s not much difference between that pathetic figure and the very unpleasant and thuggish-sounding individuals who have for weeks been pestering me with text messages on my mobile phone, about a non-existent accident.

They wouldn’t stop when asked but when I finally lost patience and texted ‘Claim’ to them, they came rushing like sharks to blood in the water. I recommend this course to anyone. It wastes their time and money, and gives you a chance to tell them what you think of them.

The huge British Embassy in Washington DC, if asked, could easily have sent back a report to the British Government, warning of all the nasty consequences of this change. That’s assuming they didn’t already know. But because they wanted to cut the Legal Aid budget at all costs, they went ahead.

I would guess that the cost to the British people of this irresponsible measure is thousands of times greater than the bill for Legal Aid ever was or could be. But it doesn’t appear on the Government accounts, so they can pretend it is a saving.

It has gone on long enough. A single, simple Act of Parliament could be passed in a few weeks to put it right. It should happen soon.

Mr Speaker, the essential voice of British cussednessIt's time to stand up for Speaker Bercow, all the more because I don’t like his politics or the fact that he has been gratuitously and ignorantly rude about our sister newspaper the Daily Mail.

Mr Bercow is the best Speaker for years. He keeps business moving fast. He drags Ministers from their desks to answer urgent questions, as he should. And, in a Parliament where there is no Opposition worthy of the name, and where the media have become fawning pets of the Prime Minister, he is the authentic voice of good old British cussedness.

You’d think, from the shocked way in which these incidents are reported, that there was something wrong with the Speaker telling the Prime Minister to stick to the rules, and inflicting a bit of sarcasm on this slippery, merciless bully.

You’d think that the Government was supposed to have the Speaker in its pocket, and that it was good for our constitution for this to be so. Well, the dwindling numbers of us who know the history of our nation and its people understand that when there’s a battle between the Speaker and the State, the Speaker is the one to back. Don’t let them scare you, Mr Bercow.

Bound for Gaza with a cargo of propagandaWe must all get ready for another season of ignorant attacks on Israel as a new fleet of alleged relief ships heads for Gaza. It is not relief. It is propaganda. How do I know? Last September I visited Gaza, with some trepidation.

I found plenty of misery there, though it is clear that much of this is maintained for propaganda reasons and could easily be put right by the rich Arab world if it wanted to. But I also found many things that the propaganda reports do not mention – including a shopping mall, beach parties and luxury restaurants.

I inspected the enormous tunnels through which large quantities of goods, including cattle and building materials, are smuggled from Egypt. There is also, in this so-called prison camp, quite a lot of open space, much of which I am glad to say is now being used for the cultivation of food.

Those who doubt my word are urged to read a series of reports in the Left-wing New York Times, which last week reported the opening in Gaza City of a second shopping mall and two luxury hotels.

We should ALL object to this airport humiliationThe demeaning, illogical humiliation of air passengers is quite bad enough as it is. Eye surgeon Antonio Aguirre was right to object to being forced to undergo an X-ray body scan. When he declined, fearing for his health, he was forbidden to fly at all. This is a severe punishment imposed without any proper legal process, quite wrong in a free country.

Not only does this, in effect, mean that staff can force us to show them our naked bodies. It is by no means clear that the radiation levels are as safe as the authorities claim. Even in the USA, where air security is two degrees above hysterical, passengers are offered a choice between scanners and a search.

The treatment of air passengers as powerless serfs, not even allowed to joke about their ridiculous treatment, shows us how our rulers would like to behave all the time if only they could, and what they really think of us.

The pretext of ‘security’ is not good enough and should be questioned every time it is advanced.

Who sneers at Oxbridge? Er, the BBC, Mr PaxmanOnly those who have lived in communist states ever understand me when I say that this country is turning into a People’s Republic in all but name. But maybe this will alert the complacent. The BBC presenter Jeremy Paxman amazingly urges the holders of Oxbridge degrees not to be ashamed of them. He says: ‘Why there should be any shame attached to them I simply do not know.’

I do. I can think of no other country in the world where attendance at its finest universities should be seen as shameful. But then no other country has the BBC, where the gilded beneficiaries of British liberty work day and night to denigrate the country that gave them all they have, its institutions, its laws, its faith and its traditions.

*****************The silly strikers need David Cameron, and David Cameron needs the silly strikers. They can pretend that he is a ruthless cutter of public spending (which he will enjoy, because he isn’t but would like his supporters to think he is). He can pretend that they are a powerful and dangerous force in society (which the unions will like because they aren’t, but would like their supporters to think they are).

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, I managed to catch up with James Stenson on a more recent thread, and I have invited him to pop back to this thread to continue the debate that he walked away from five days ago. Let’s see if he has the guts to re-appear.

From the brief exchange we had on that other thread, it seems – don’t laugh, now – that Mr Stenson STILL maintains that he didn’t get his facts wrong and that he was perfectly correct to accuse me of “disgraceful misrepresentation” for simply pointing out that Hutton’s report contained a chart which showed that public sector pension payouts were set to fall as a share of GDP over coming decades.

In the face of all the evidence, Mr Stenson seems to think that he is right to say that the change from RPI to CPI hasn’t yet taken effect and that Hutton DID factor in the 3% increase.

That can only mean one of two things. Either the man (a) is utterly delusional (certainly possible, given his recent behaviour) and cannot see what everyone else is able to see, or (b) didn’t bother to read my two most recent posts here before slinking off. I’ll be charitable and assume the latter. In which case, I would invite Mr Stenson to read my two most recent posts (particularly the first one on 13 July at 11.53am). He should then reply, and in doing so provide clear evidence of why he is right (about the switch to CPI and the 3%) and I am wrong. And I mean clear evidence (references, quotes, etc), just as I have provided in all my own arguments, not the kind of vague statements that he has relied on until now.

I look forward to seeing what he has to offer because, frankly, he’ll need to do something worthy of Houdini to get out of this one.

James Stenson appears to have finally deserted the field of battle. It’s probably understandable, given that he has seen his arguments – and particularly his false accusation against me – completely crushed.

The dispute was always a very straightforward one. It began with my simple point to Mr Hitchens that Lord Hutton’s report contained projections showing that public sector pension payouts were set to fall as a share of GDP in future decades. Nothing more and nothing less than that. It was a plain, truthful and easily verifiable fact. I never claimed that Hutton was against reforming public sector pensions (clearly he isn’t), and I never claimed that he thought that current arrangements were fair (clearly he doesn’t). I simply pointed out that his report contained those particular projections.

Mr Stenson subsequently accused me of “disgraceful misrepresentation”, claiming that the projections were only arrived at AFTER all the proposed reforms had been factored-in. This was simply wrong, and I provided an abundance of evidence to show why it was wrong. Point by point, Mr Stenson’s accusation has been knocked into a cocked hat.

But instead of doing the honourable thing and withdrawing his charge of “disgraceful misrepresentation”, Mr Stenson has flip-flopped all over the place, disingenuously attempting to alter the terms of the original disagreement and making several statements that in the end he was completely unable to substantiate. Sadly, he also resorted to personal abuse (always a sign that someone is losing the argument).

I would have been happy to debate all the other issues that Mr Stenson raised in his posts, but only when he did the decent thing and withdrew his unfair and unfounded accusation. He failed to do that, and I think less of him because of it.

Sometimes in life, we are required to put our hands up and admit we were wrong, especially if we have unjustly impugned another's integrity. There is no shame in that. The shame is in trying to maintain you were right when every piece of evidence shows you were not. In this case, the shame falls on Mr Stenson.

The spectacle of James Stenson trying frantically to extricate himself from a mess of his own making is a very sorry one indeed. If his argument were a dog, it would have been put down long ago.

Mr Stenson now claims that he accepted all along (yeah, right!) that Hutton did not factor-in his own proposals that people work longer, pay higher contributions and receive reduced benefits, and that all he ever meant to say was that Hutton had factored-in two specific changes initiated by government but which haven’t yet taken effect.

I would ask people to look at the thrust of Mr Stenson’s comments in this thread and ask themselves whether they truly believe that Mr Stenson was only ever referring to these two narrow points when making his original sweeping accusations of “disgraceful misrepresentation” against me.

For example, why did he say: “Lord Hutton's predictions INCLUDE the present Government's pension reforms in its predictions?” when, so he now claims, he actually meant just TWO of the many proposed reforms?

And why did he also say: “The predictions about the future bill to the taxpayer which Hutton made factored in the very reforms which Mr Embery is opposing,” when, again as he now claims, he meant just two of those many reforms?

Mr Stenson is what a judge would describe as “not a credible witness”.

In any case, let’s examine (again!) and demolish (again!) Mr Stenson’s argument on its own terms.

In respect of the first reform he mentioned, I can assure Mr Stenson, despite his protests to the contrary, that the change from RPI to CPI HAS already been introduced. It was proposed by the government as part of its June 2010 budget (which is why Hutton factored it in) and rubber-stamped by parliament (see Hansard) on 17 February, to take effect on 5 April. Why does Mr Stenson continue to deny this?

And, second, the question of whether the 3% increase has taken effect becomes irrelevant because Hutton DID NOT factor it in to his GDP projections in the first place. I have explained in clear terms why Hutton did not (and, indeed, COULD not) have factored-in this proposal, and I have referred Mr Stenson to the relevant sections of the report. Yet, in a stunning display of bone-headed intractability, Mr Stenson continues to claim otherwise (but, as usual, without offering any proof).

So even on the new narrow terms that he has created for it, Mr Stenson’s argument that I was guilty of “disgraceful misrepresentation” for merely pointing out that Hutton’s report contained projections that public sector pension payouts were set to fall as a share of GDP is found to be wholly and incontrovertibly flawed.

Is Mr Stenson the only person who cannot see that his accusation has been systematically and comprehensively destroyed?

If he has a shred of decency, he will come back and withdraw his false charge against me.

In my last comment, I meant to say that you misrepresented Hutton's views by claiming in your response to Mr Hitchens, that it was Hutton's view that pension costs would fall. In fact, he told the Guardian they won't, unless significant increases to employee contributions are made; and that this is unfair on private-sector workers. I also meant to add that both the change to employee contributions and the change to CPI, have not yet taken effect, were both opposed by the unions who wave Hutton's report around, and both have NOT yet taken effect.

Mr Embery.
Your now misrepresenting my original post as well as Lord Hutton's views. I did NOT say that Hutton factored in his recommendations. Please find the quote where I said this.
What I said (rightly) was that Hutton's report includes many of the changes you and the unions are opposing. This includes both the changes I mentioned ( the increase in contributions was factored into the report). The first change does not fake effect until next year.
So there's no apology, Mr Embery and I haven't spent any of this discussion "on the ropes", rather it us you and the unions who have lost the argument: which is why the majority of the public agree with me and Lord Hutton and disagree with your view that hard-pressed taxpayers who dont get such generous provisions,should pick up the bill for the public-sector pension shortfall.
I should also point out that, having misrepresented what I said in my original post (I never said Hutton factored in HIS recommendations)you also misrepresented Hutton's views in YOUR post in response to Mr Hitchens. You claimed it was not Lord Hutton's view that the cost of pensions would fall. Actually, Hutton argued that this is not the case because, as he told the Guardian, he wouldn't "bank on" those figures in the first place.

You have been wrong on every count in this discussion. From claiming Hutton's report did NOT include Coalition pension reforms opposed by the Unions (which it did; see my examples)

James Stenson is clearly on the ropes. Before I put him out of the ring completely, let’s just remind ourselves what the dispute is about. Mr Stenson boldly accused me of “disgraceful misrepresentation” for pointing out that the Hutton report predicted that public sector pension payouts were set to fall as a share of GDP in future decades. Mr Stenson claimed this was the case only AFTER Hutton’s own proposals had been “factored-in”. In other words, I had deceitfully twisted Hutton’s figures to bolster my own argument. Mr Stenson argued that this rendered my whole argument “null and void”.

I subsequently provided clear references from the Hutton report to show that I was correct and Mr Stenson was wrong. Hutton had very clearly NOT factored-in his own proposals that people work longer, pay higher contributions and receive reduced benefits when they retire, before making his calculations. He had only factored-in changes already initiated over previous years.

Instead of accepting this, Mr Stenson now tries desperately to substantiate his false charge, and in doing so comes up with the following “proof”:

(a) He says that Hutton factored-in the proposal to switch from RPI to CPI, which “has not been implemented”.

(b) He claims that Hutton factored-in the proposal to increase contributions by 3%.

In respect of (a), two points. First, insofar as this comparatively small change would make a difference to the overall trend of the share of GDP, it was NOT actually a proposal of the Hutton report, which kind of renders Mr Stenson’s point irrelevant. The change was, quite reasonably, factored-in by Hutton because it was announced by the government as part of its June 2010 budget – independently of Hutton and before he had even started work on his report – and plans for its implementation had been laid before Hutton’s final report was published. Hutton’s report makes this clear. And second, contrary to what Mr Stenson claims, the change WAS implemented some months ago.

In respect of (b) the figures showing the reduction in the share of GDP were calculated by the Government Actuary Department, at Hutton’s request, some time before the publication of his interim report in October 2010. Yet the government didn’t even announce its proposal for the 3% increase until two months AFTER publication of the interim report, and by extension well after the actuary department had made its calculations. It is obvious, therefore, that the projections were made without factoring-in the 3% increase, and anyone who reads Hutton’s interim or full report can see that this is so.

Mr Stenson is bang to rights. His arguments have been picked apart and demolished. If he has any honour, he will withdraw his false and unfounded charge against me. It is simply not acceptable to make serious accusations about a person’s integrity and then refuse to withdraw them when you are found to be wrong. I hope he does the right thing.

Mr Blance,
First, thanks for your gracious apology, I agree with you that what makes this blog enjoyable is the lack of gratuitous insults which marr so much of the blogosphere these days. {perhaps I'm old-fashioned but I get genuinely shocked when I see the comments sections which follow online news stories, they seem to consist entirely of people hurling faeces at each other). It's pretty well irresistible for correspondents to try and picture each other when engaging in argument (I do it just like everyone else), but in reality we know next to nothing about each other. I'm sure you meant no harm but I suppose I reacted adversely to the feeling that you'd reduced me to some sort of cliché.
One final word before we agree to disagree on the subject of the BBC. Actually I don't believe in conspiracy theories at all, I don't think the world is well-enough organised for them to be effective. But there's no need for a Marxist plot at the Beeb, you just hire into all the key posts people with basically the same education and left-wing world-view and Bob's your uncle. No need for plots, secret meetings when everyone's of the same mind.

Mr Embery.
I provided no proof? I mentioned two specific changes to pensions, both opposed by the same unions trumpeting Labour-supporting Lord Hutton's report, and both which have not yet taken effect!

The change from RPI to CPI has not been implemented, nor has the 3% increase in contributions which public-sector employees make to their pensions. Both were and are opposed by the unions. Both are essential to Hutton's calculations (which he himself admits are just a "rough guess" particularly considering the fluctuations in economic performance).

Hutton further admits (something you and the unions never mention) that the current public-sector deficit is financially unsustainable unless employees considerably increase their contributions (something bitterly opposed by the unions).
As your poster-boy Mr Hutton wrote "we should look at increasing contributions because we just weren't funding the pensions properly, and this is why there is a £10bn deficit in the funding envelope for public service pensions.............that cost is being met entirely today by ordinary taxpayers, and I don't think that is a sustainable platform for the next 20, 30, 40 years as our economy shrinks".

Give it up, Embery. Hutton's report DID factor in changes that haven't yet been made over the past 10 years (but are being introduced by this Government and opposed by the unions, which is a good reason to keep on purusuing them)

By the way, it was funny to hear Mark Serwotka on the news using the same tired, false "race to the bottom" remark which you pulled out earlier (a ridiculous, false usage of the phrase, since both private-sector workers and public-sector workers have to endure these and other changes, including redundancies and wage cuts, to save our economy in the long run).
Can't you people come up with your own phrases, or do you all read from a cue-card with a list of ready-made trade-union talking points?
"Hutton report says its all going to be OK"...race to the bottom"..."cuts are Thatcherite"..."we had a higher deficit after World War 2" etc etc.

Now please do respond to something else that i've written, and I'll explain why your wrong about that too. All the "race to the bottom" nonsense, and your false claim that Mr Hitchens was contradicting himself are all even more worthy of discussion, than your misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of Hutton's report and his views.

James Stenson is missing-in-action once more and seems to be ignoring my latest post. Whatever could have happened to him?

Perhaps he has "gone away" again. Perhaps he really is frantically poring over the Hutton report in a futile effort to substantiate his false charge. Or perhaps (more likely), having seen his allegation against me roundly trashed he cannot summon up the decency to come back here and withdraw it.

Not to worry. I'm sure I'll catch him when he pops up on another thread in the future.

Thanks for your reply. Also, I am sorry that you took offence at my use of the phrase "likes of you." It was not meant to be a personal insult and I regret that you took it that way. I should have used a more generic term. I am always grateful for the opportunity to engage in a bit of cut-and-thrust on this site and civilised debate with intelligent people is what makes this blog so enjoyable. Sometimes, though, one can come across as less polite on the page than in reality. Apologies.

Now to the debate:

Maybe you do wish to hold the BBC to very high standards; that is quite understandable, but it is not fair in respect of this specific example. What you are saying is that SKY or the Daily Telegraph's coverage of the event was bad because of commercial pressures and the general dumbing down of our media, but that the BBC's rather similar coverage is motivated by their devious desire to
"move softly but relentlessly towards the dream of a republican Utopia."

You asked if it sounded far-fetched. Well, I think it does. I also think, like many conspiracy theories, it is based more on what the believer wants to believe rather than hard evidence. I would welcome proof that the BBC is some sort of giant Marxist plot to destroy Britain as we know it (believe it or not i wouldn't be too keen on that state of affairs either) but, frankly, I don't think it exists.

"James Stenson is so busy persuing his race to the bottom that he completely ignores the reality that the banks caused the mess we're in (even Mervyn King has owned up). Why is this? Why does he not attack the rich and insist they help sort out a mess they created? If he can pause from his Littlejohn style attacks on public sector workers, it'd be interesting to know. Paul Embery is completely correct when he says that the tactic of the rich is divide and conquer - and James Stenson is evidence that some have fallen for it.".

Why do some keep parrotting, "It woz the banks what done it all"? I'll agree they were culpable but the US government actively encouraged them to make loans which the recipients had no hope of repaying. In this country dear old Gordon Brown put pressure on Lloyds to takeover HBOS which led to two banks ending up in serious trouble instead of one. The UK government didn't seem that bothered when ridiculous mortgages were handed out by Northern Rock as it made the voters happy. Successive governments have felt it necssary to chase the rainbow of globalisation encouraging financial institutions to behave in a reckless manner. There was a crock of something at the end of it but it wasn't gold.

James Stenson’s desperate attempt to convince us that his accusation against me was justified is pretty painful to watch.

I actually pity people who, when confronted with clear and incontrovertible proof that they got it wrong, lack the decency and courage to admit it.

Let’s for the moment leave aside some of the peripheral arguments that Mr Stenson brings up in his latest post and concentrate instead on the very specific accusation that he made against me. He said: “Are you not aware that Lord Hutton's predictions INCLUDE the present Government's pension reforms in its predictions? Therefore, your whole argument is null and void.” And later: “Paul Embery simply cannot be allowed to get away with his disgraceful misrepresentation of Lord Hutton's examination of our public-sector pension liabilities. The predictions about the future bill to the taxpayer which Hutton made factored in the very reforms which Mr Embery is opposing.”

The accusation was clear, specific and unambiguous. I was, according to Mr Stenson, guilty of “disgraceful misrepresentation” for suggesting that Hutton’s report predicted that pension payouts will decline as a share of GDP in future decades. Mr Stenson claimed that Hutton’s projections were only calculated AFTER his proposals had been “factored-in”.

I then provided clear references from the Hutton report to show that I was right and Mr Stenson was wrong. I even quoted specific paragraphs and chart numbers that proved me right. What Hutton had actually “factored-in” were not his own proposals, but changes to public sector pensions WHICH HAD ALREADY OCCURRED WITHIN THE LAST TEN YEARS. Anyone who reads the report will see that Hutton did not factor-in his own proposals before making his predictions about future payouts.

But instead of honourably withdrawing his accusation, Mr Stenson tries furiously to convince us that he was right all along. It’s rather pathetic.

Mr Stenson provides no proof at all to support his specific claim that Hutton had “factored-in” his own proposals. If anything, by making reference as he does to alterations that have ALREADY occurred – such as the change from RPI to CPI – Mr Stenson seems unwittingly to be endorsing MY argument and not his own!

Mr Stenson says that Hutton admits that his predictions are unreliable. That may well be so. We must all accept that making such predictions is not a perfect science. But Mr Stenson’s original accusation was not centred on what the margin of error was. No, he was arguing something fundamentally different. He was arguing very specifically that Hutton had already “factored-in” his proposals when making his predictions. That claim by Mr Stenson is utterly, demonstrably and emphatically false. Why can Mr Stenson just not admit it?

I would be very happy to debate all the other points Mr Stenson raises in his latest post, but that can only happen when he shows some honour and withdraws a serious and specific accusation that has been shown beyond all doubt to be utterly unfounded.

Do you suggest that there are persons, at the BBC, consciously beavering away to denigrate the country that gave them all they and everybody who lives here have? You must know just about as much as any 'outsider' about the inner workings of that fine old institution so I can't argue. I have said before that, if true, their mission will suddenly come up against a brick wall. We just have to be patient.

As the "someone" whom Mr. Age was quoting, I would hope that no-one would read into what I said any more than that I find no conflict between my former field of scientific research and my belief in a Creator of those things into which I was researching, and whose works are praised in the (to me) magnificent poetry of the Book of Job.

Having said that, I wholly support Mr. Age and like him I happen to disagree wholly with Professor Dawkins' understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything; but I wish the good Professor would conduct his arguments with the same courteous rationality that is shown, for example, by an atheist good friend of mine, discussions with whom are invariably interesting and thought-provoking for us both.

The frequent lack of such courteous rationality on this site, where atheists and theists appear too often to be interested only in point-scoring and yah-booing, and not in seeking truth, is the reason why I engaged in a one-to-one with Mr. Age on a subject of interest to us both, and wrote that I did not wish to engage with the atheist brotherhood. This was perhaps a discourtesy to other users of the site - using a public forum for a private exchange; in which case I apologize, and plead that I have no other way of engaging with Mr. Age.

James Stenson is so busy persuing his race to the bottom that he completely ignores the reality that the banks caused the mess we're in (even Mervyn King has owned up). Why is this? Why does he not attack the rich and insist they help sort out a mess they created? If he can pause from his Littlejohn style attacks on public sector workers, it'd be interesting to know. Paul Embery is completely correct when he says that the tactic of the rich is divide and conquer - and James Stenson is evidence that some have fallen for it.

Let's subject your response to reasoned argument. My central assertion was that the BBC is far too smart to simply ignore occasions like the Royal Wedding, so your point about repeats of Cash In the Attic is somewhat mystifying. They would never be so clumsy, that was my point. Besides being inconceivable to ignore an event in that way, it would also be to pass up a perfect opportunity to steer the public's perception of the Monarchy. The BBC's historic position in the minds of the British public makes it powerful enough to be able to set the mood for any national event it cares to cover. Move softly but relentlessly towards the dream of a republican Utopia. Far fetched? I wish it were.

Easing quickly past your meaningless insult "the likes of you", let's continue. I think the comparisons with Sky News and ITV are irrelevant since neither of them glories in the title British Broadcasting Corporation. Yes, I do expect more taste and a greater sense of respect for the institutions of this country from an organisation funded entirely by a tax imposed on its citizens. Is this unreasonable? I don't think so. Like the commercial TV companies, other media organisations like the Daily Mail and Telegraph are also exempt from this discussion. They are free to pursue their own agendas since they will stand or fall on their own commercial judgements and do not depend on public funding. They are regrettably but quite legitimately responding to the lowering of taste which has occurred in this country over the last half century, which is why I don't buy them. But it would be quite irrational to compare the way the BBC ought to cover a subject with for instance, Heat magazine.

As I'm sure you well know, the answer to your Proms question - is the BBC. In fact the Proms have been supported by the BBC continuously since 1927 (with a break during the war years) but the Corporation was a very different organisation in 1927 from what it has become. The present regime has in effect inherited the Proms from its predecessors. It is actually mostly a Radio 3 project not a BBC television event and thus largely ignored by BBC-1 until we come to the second half of the last night. As with Royal Weddings there would be a huge outcry if it were to withdraw this tradition. But you can always mess around with it and reduce it to cater for populist tastes. For an example look no further than the Last Night this year where the singing of Rule Britannia will be preceded by Rodgers and Hammerstein's 'Climb Ev'ry Mountain' from the Sound of Music and 'You'll Never Walk Alone', originally from the show Carousel but for the last forty years, much better known as the battle anthem of Liverpool Football Club fans. Don't be surprised if that bronze bust of Henry Woods is seen weeping as it gazes down forlornly.

Paul Embery.
I had been actually been away.It's rather presumptious to assume the only reason I haven't read and replied to your posts as soon as you published them, is because I have conceded defeat.

I was correct in everything I said.

Lord Hutton's predictions took account of changes - which the unions oppose - to the inflation uprating of pensions, from RPI to CPI, and further reforms to longevity (recalling that the costs of pensions have already risen by a third since 1999, at a time when the private sector and other areas of Government spending are being scaled back to deal with our staggering deficit).
Lord Hutton also accepts the vital need for reform ,which is why he supports the Government's changes.

You are also misrepresenting Hutton's view by stating that he believes, on the basis of his examination, that the bill to the taxpayer from public-sector pensions will actually fall in future.

Actually Hutton, contrary to you and the trade unions disgraceful misuse of his report, actually admits his own predictions are completely unreliable. He says"we shouldn't rely on that 50-year bet that overall these pensions are sustainable in their current form". He went on to say his predicted figures are a "rough guess" which are not reliable because they are "susceptible to variations about economic performance, salary growth in the public sector, the size of the public sector workforce".

Its hilarious to watch Embery and the unions relying on a report by someone who agrees with the need for urgent public-sector pension reforms, argues the present pension system is "unsustainable", predicts it could only possibly work if changes the unions oppose go through, and himself admits his predictions are just "a rough guess".

I think you can admit resounding defeat on all counts, Mr Embery.

Hutton is fed up of the way his report is being abused by you people to pretend that we can carry on with the unsustainable status-quo.
Hutton also agrees that it is completely unfair that taxpayers continue funding public-sector pension provisions far more generous than those they receive (the thrust of mine and Mr Hitchens argument) especially at a time when public-sector workers are, as present figures show, better-paid than private-sector workers.

You say it is "utterly preposterous" that public-sector employees should be treated like the "most exploited" in the private sector.

Those in the private-sector have had to endure pension reform, job losses and wage cuts,(just like other areas of the public sector have had to face cuts) not because they are "exploited", but because its necessary under present economic circumstances.
Its called reality, Mr Embery. Something the public-sector have been cocooned from for far too long.

And Mr Hitchens views on union power were not contradictory; the unions aren’t powerful or dangerous, because the changes they once sought, have been enforced by the power of the EU. The Unions (whats left of them) are now just a subsidiary part of the public-sector Establishment fighting to protect the status quo.

".....pointing up the fraudulent basis of the entire Dawkins schtick – pretending that philosophical atheism is the inevitable result of scientific rationality."

It's not that I doubt what you say, sir, but, whenever people start using such generalised and seemingly abstracted words, I tend - being a little simple-minded - quickly to lose the thread of what they are saying. I would appreciate it, if you would kindly put the expression "philosophical atheism is the inevitable result of scientific rationality" into a style of language which an intelligent child of, say, 11 or 12 might reasonably be expected to understand. That from past experience seems to be about my intellectual level.
This is best done by increasing the number of verbs - and therefore automatically also of clauses and conjunctions - in the sentence.
Thank you.

(I hope this exchange isn't going too far off topic - doubtless our host will monitor it if it is.)

Thankyou for your pleasant words.

The OT is by no means "sentimental" towards the animal creation, but time and again it reminds us how seriously we ought to be taking it. ("Sentimental" is often used pejoratively; but it is perfectly proper that we should have correct sentiments towards Creation.)

This is not the place for exhaustive quotes of chapter and verse, but looking forward from your current reading I commend especially many of the Psalms, including 145, also my favourite 104, and 84 - which has a particular resonance for me at present as a pair of swallows have "laid their young" in a nest above my bedroom door.

See too the magnificent chapters 38 to 41 of Job, which have their own significance for me as a one-time space scientist.

Not in the Jewish OT, but in the Septuagint (Greek OT), the Song of the Three Holy Children was a standard canticle for Morning Prayer, as the "Benedicite", before the C of E lost its nerve and jettisoned the Book of Common Prayer. It reminded us daily that the whole of Creation joins in praise of Him who made it, and sets us humans in our proper place alongside all things visible and invisible.

As for your not being "too over the top" - by no means; I'll just remind you of Isaiah 11 with its prophecy of the reign of the Messiah. Not irrelevantly, I have on a shelf overlooking my desk as I type statuettes of St. Francis of Assisi, complete with birds on his shoulders and Brother Wolf and Sister Lamb at his feet, and St. Martin de Porres, with dog, cat and rat sharing a bowl at his feet.

Sorry about the divergence, Mr. Hitchens, but it's rather nice to have a measure of harmony about something amongst your contributors!

Oh dear. James Stenson seems to have disappeared. Could it be anything to do with the fact that his allegation that I was guilty of "disgraceful misrepresentation" in respect of the Hutton report has been shown to be utterly unfounded. Maybe he is frantically thumbing through the report in an attempt to find something that supports his charge.

When he's finished, I hope he will have the good grace to return to this thread and make an honourable withdrawal.

Your article "just text claim" indicates you like to comment on popular subjects, without all the facts giving a biased view. My son is a personal injury lawyer, who worked extremely hard in a school classed as poor and an area of the country described as deprived to follow this aspect of law, and has completed many satisfying cases, to helppeople who without "no win no fee" would not get justice. The American system is not the same as the system in thyis country. Perhaps you need to speak to a representative from APIL, to get a view and some facts covering the other side of this industry.

Thanks for your response. It is, though, a little Orwellian in its reasoning: the BBC hates the Royal Family because of all the deference it shows towards them. Well, if you want to go down that road fair enough, but I don't think it stands up as a reasoned argument. Put it this way: if the Beeb had spent Royal Wedding Day pumping out repeats of To But Or Not To Buy or Cash In The Attic then the clamour from the anti-BBC media would have been deafening. It seems that for the likes of you it is damned either way.

Also, were Sky News or ITN not similarly celebrity /fashion obsessed when it came to some of the guests? I'm sure I saw pictures of Pippa Middleton's derriere on other channels and newspapers. Also, was The Daily Mail's or Daily Telegraph's seemingly equally obsequios coverage an elaborate front for there closet Marxism as well? Or does your doublethink logic only apply to the BBC? And, remind me, who is it who organizes and broadcasts The Last Night of theProms?

Many thanks for your beautiful post Luckett, and I especially loved the way it culminated in ‘a total reappraisal of our attitude towards, and treatment of, the whole animal kingdom’

I couldn’t agree more!

Of course the OT is as unsentimental about animals as it is about everything else but that is one of the fascinating things about the Bible; people find it hard to reconcile the OT with the NT but they shouldn’t, I think, see them as irreconcilable at all – we need the Strength and Power to protect the Goodness – in our perversely emasculated society, brute force at its most unpleasant is manifesting everywhere (and today significantly amongst the previously less exceptionable female and childage – a new low) , and that inevitably includes manifesting in a drastic increase in the infliction of cruelty to animals, as anybody who has read the data provided by the PDSA will know.

Evil should have nowhere to hide! I am still on Genesis and loved the sudden appearance in Genesis 18:2 of ‘the three men’ to Abram – all the enigmatic power of one of those quasi-supernatural manifestations of Justice that Clint Eastwood could pull off so well in his pre ‘nuanced’ days! (and all in unbeatable KJV prose)

There are 1189 chapters in the Bible and it seems a bit insane to embark on trying to read the whole thing consecutively, but it is absolutely making sense – one could get bogged down in exasperation trying to respond to such statements as (for an example, and because it is on this thread) ‘In my experience the USA has only three types of newspaper; Right-wing, extreme Right-wing and rabid Right-wing.’ Much better to say ‘I am not getting into all that (and refuse to engage with delusory talk of ‘left’ and ‘right’)’ and shrink all that down to perspective and to read something that is both out of time and before this era and thus describing it very well indeed – especially so, seeing as we appear to be living in the Book of Revelation and that condition that Paul is describing when he writes that ‘we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. ‘

Hope this doesn’t sound TOO over the top– hopefully by the time one has come to the end one will be chatting to the birds and animals and calling them Brother and Sister!

I read with "interest" your comments regarding the Gaza situation and the misery that is maintained for Palestinian propaganda purposes while, in reality, the people of Gaza had choices for luxury living.

As reinforcement to your words, you asked doubters to read a series of reports in what you described as "the Left-Wing, New York Times".

Hm! In my experience the USA has only three types of newspaper; Right-wing, extreme Right-wing and rabid Right-wing.

If in your opinion the New York Times is Left-wing, where does this place you?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.